HomeMy WebLinkAboutMain Staff Report The Newport Beach Civic Center
Close-Out Report and Lessons Learned
January 13, 2015
Study Session of the Newport Beach City Council
by Dave Kiff, City Manager, and Steve Badum,Assistant City Manager
Dear City Council and Other Readers:
As far back as April 1998, then-City Manager Kevin Murphy asked the community and City Council to begin
planning for the long-term facilities needs of the city government (see Exhibit A). A case in point at that time
was the City Hall building, constructed in 1947 and then 50 years old.
Our report today attempts to summarize many — but not all — of the actions taken by public leaders since that
time, actions that have resulted in the construction of the Civic Center at 100 Civic Center Drive, built at an "all-
in" cost of about $140.2 million, if costs (hard construction costs, soft costs, planning costs, environmental
review costs, insurance and inspections, and more)from mid-2008 through 2013 are taken into account.
We both helped coordinate this project, and we are proud of how it came out. It was not a perfect process,
from outreach to construction, but projects this large rarely are. When completed, it:
• Was the result of over 100 public meetings and Council actions, as well as a public vote on Measure B,
the action that in effect moved City Hall's operations from the Peninsula to the current site.
• Was communicated to our residents via meetings with service clubs, HOAs, business associations, and
mailed community newsletters 13 different times between 2008 and 2013, newsletters that went to
every residence and business in the City(about 54,000 separate addresses).
• Took advantage of a large downturn in the economy to build five needed different projects in one,
saving millions had the five been built separately. These projects were:
o An expansion of the Central Library
o A City Hall, with a community room, Council chambers, a "one-stop' permit counter and
disaster preparedness center.
o A 15-acre park, including a Civic Green, a dog park, and new landscaping around the Library.
o A pedestrian bridge to easily link two sides of the park.
o A 450-space parking structure, 100 of which are for the Library.
• Took over four years—from planning to completion—to build and occupy.
• Was privately managed by a well-known construction manager (CW Driver), and had all elements of
construction go out to public bid,where the lowest qualified bidder got the job.
• Excavated 200,000 cubic yards of material, all to sink the buildings below a view plane, and comprising
about$8 million of the cost.
• Had over 700 change orders, most small in magnitude, but resulting in 6.1% of the total project cost
(about in line with industry norms).
• Caused significant debate in the community thanks to its cost, some of its design (like the wave roof and
the sail), and aspects like the play elements for kids (the rabbits) and the cafe for Library users.
• Was funded by a combination of debt (about $124M) and cash (the remaining $18.5M), which was the
largest debt issuance by the City. Debt service is about 4.72%of General Fund revenues, and is declining
slowly.
• Has been used and enjoyed by residents, visitors, and the city employees who work here. We all feel
very honored to work in such an impressive facility.
After we describe the path to the Civic Center and its construction, we offer in this document our "lessons
learned." We have tried to be critical of ourselves and our process, without casting blame beyond what we
ourselves learned and accept. At the same time, we remain proud of the facility and the work done, and hope
that others do as well. Constructing a public building in this era, when there is a general and strong concern
about the scope and size of government expenditures (one we accept and often share), isn't easy and often isn't
a popular action—but it was our assignment, and we took it on willingly.
Sincerely,
DAVE KIFF STEVE BADUM
City Manager Assistant City Manager
The Path to the Civic Center. In 2001, the Newport Beach City Council asked: "do we need to improve and or
rebuild the City Hall?" At that time, the City Hall complex consisted of four buildings of mixed age (the oldest
building constructed in 1945) of approximately 44,000 square feet ("SF"). Most of the circulation for the
buildings was outside, in the nearly-always pleasant Newport Beach elements. At the time, City operations
were a bit squeezed—we needed an additional 4300 SF and ultimately expanded into four additional trailers.
Early Planning. At a July 24, 2001 Study Session, the City Council directed staff to pursue a long term strategic
plan in the form of a City Hall Facilities Master Plan. At subsequent meetings, the City Council retained outside
consultants to conduct a Space Needs Assessment (how much SF should be constructed) and to prepare
conceptual and schematic plans to:
• Replace the current City Hall at 3300 Newport Boulevard.
• Replace Fire Station#2 (Lido); and
• Construct a parking structure to accommodate City Hall needs.
Several public workshops, study sessions, and regular Council meetings were held to develop the final concept.
There was significant controversy over the cost of the consultants, and several residents spoke to the City
Council about the roughly$560,000 cost for concept design efforts.
As the wheels of this Project moved very slowly and deliberately, by now it's mid-2005. At the August 23, 2005
meeting,City Council approved a concept design that included:
• A 72,000 SF City Hall with the ability to expand it 8,000 more SF if needed.
• A 2,600 SF Community Room.
• A replacement Fire Station; and
• A roughly 35'tall parking structure with 350 spaces.
The City Hall office building was to utilize "tilt up" construction (similar to typical warehouse construction) and
was estimated to cost $49,757,000 (in 2005 dollars). This cost was "all-in" — design, permitting, CEQA, soft
costs, and hard costs.
In 2006/07, the City Council membership evolved through an election and several appointments. At least three
Council members had moved on to opportunities outside of the Newport Beach, resigning from their positions.
New Council members were appointed, subject to election at the next general election.
The new Council members wanted to take a fresh look at two things: (1) whether and how the City could afford
a new City Hall; and, if so (2) where it should be located. On January 24, 2006, the City Council formed two
committees — the Facilities Finance Review Committee and the City Hall Site Review Committee - to explore
these issues. The appointed committee members were residents and/or business people that had extensive
experience in financial and real estate matters, respectively.
The Facilities Committee,working with staff, developed what is now the Facilities Financing Plan (FFP)to project
the City's building facilities and other major infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. The committee held
five public meetings to discuss issues and receive public comment.The committee's final report determined that
the City could afford to construct a new City Hall along with a variety of other facilities' needs, but it also
recommended issuing debt — specifically, Certificates of Participation (COPs). The COPS were to be paid back
under a "level funding" concept, and funded by three "buckets" of revenues:
1. City reserves saved up for facilities purposes.
2. An annual contribution from the General Fund; and
3. Developer fees from large community projects, like the PIMCO Tower and more.
The debt service would be low compared to City General Fund revenues — staying below 5% debt to General
Fund Revenue. At that time, adjacent cities typically had debt ratios of as high as 17%. The FFP is still in use
today and continues as a tool for City Council to analyze and make financial decisions. Today, the City's debt to
General Fund ratio is about 4.72%
The second group, the City Hall Site Review Committee, conducted six public meetings, analyzed 22 sites
throughout the city, and received over 70 public comments. Although there was a strong desire to centralize
the location of City Hall in the Newport Center area, no sites near there were deemed appropriate, and this
Committee recommended keeping the City Hall at the existing Peninsula location (3300 Newport Boulevard).
One site that was very controversial was the site of the proposed "Newport Center Park" between Avocado and
MacArthur (the location of the current Civic Center). The Site Review Committee didn't recommend it, and the
Council itself was split on whether to use this location. This came on a 4-3 vote, with current Council members
Curry and Selich voting not to consider moving City Hall to the Newport Center Park site.
By now it's 2007.
A group of concerned citizens led by Bill Ficker, a renowned local architect and yachtsman, liked the idea of
moving City Hall to the Newport Center Park site, and felt that the centralizing of the City Hall in Newport Center
should be voted on by the people. The group gathered the necessary signatures to place the question on the
February 2008 ballot, in the form of an amendment to the City Charter. This was Measure B.
Measure B, if passed, would say that City Hall must be located at the Newport Center Park site. The campaign
was boisterous — "City Hall in the Park" versus something akin to "Save Newport Center Park. City officials —
including staff — stayed out of the debate, as is the law. Nor did City staff comment on or have a role in
developing what became campaign statements (including estimated costs of the project) on either side (see
Exhibit B for an example of one campaign mailer).
The February 2008 vote was 16,938 (52.9%) in favor to 15,092 (47.1%) opposed. Measure B became the law of
the land—and the placement of City Hall is in the City Charter(Section 425):
Section 425 City Hall.
City Hall, including most administrative offices of the City and related parking, shall be located on the City-owned
parcel bounded by Avocado Ave. on the west San Miguel Dr. on the north, MacArthur Blvd. on the east, and the
Newport Beach Central Library on the south.
In an effort to heal the community after a divisive vote, the City Council — led by then-Mayor Ed Selich — said
words to the effect of"if we're going to do this, let's do it as a community and do it right." The Council initiated
planning for the "City Hall in the Park" concept.
Mayor Selich and the Council's unanimous goal was to provide a park for the park supporters while meeting the
voter mandate to locate the City Hall in Newport Center at the Avocado site. At a meeting on February 26,
2008, the City Council confirmed that the City will be moving forward to build a new City Hall and large park at
the vacant City-owned 12-acre site north of the City's Central Library on Avocado Avenue. Included in the park's
design and development would be the vacant 3.5 acre site north between San Miguel Road and the OCTA
Transportation Center along Avocado Avenue.
The next step in this effort was to select an architect. To ensure that the community's wishes were forefront in
the effort,the City Council established the City Hall Design Committee, a group of five local resident architects.
They were to meet in open, public sessions (in late afternoon and evening) at the Central Library to work with
the community to develop "parameters" (later referred to as the General Design Parameters) for a design for
the City Hall in the Park, and then to conduct an Architectural Design Competition. The Committee was formed
on March 25, 2008, less than two months after the Measure B vote.
The City Hall Design Committee held two public meeting to collect input and establish the design parameters for
the City Hall in the Park. The parameters included considerations such as:
• Access in and around the site and circulation
• Building heights, and how that would impact public views
• The approximate square footage for floor plans
• Advice on costs per square foot for construction
• A requirement that the City Hall and Park be connected to and with the Central Library.
• A 450-space parking structure
• The style of the park(passive, not active—just as the Newport Center Park idea was more passive
• Other park amenities, such as play areas.
• And sustainability and LEED considerations.
It was at this time that the Project grew most significantly in scope. The design parameters specifically
recognized that this project would be more than a City Hall—it became a true "civic center" with parking, a park,
and the library expansion in addition to the City Hall. The requirement that the Project stay below a "view
plane' protecting public views from MacArthur was a significant statement — it also meant that the site would
have to undergo massive (and costly) excavation.
The City Council later discussed and amended the General Design Parameters, and adopted them at a public
meeting on April 22. 2008 (see Exhibit C). At the time, staff members and Council members spoke about the
significant change in the Project scope.
The architects' Design Committee continued with three public meetings to develop the design competition
process over Spring and Summer 2008, generally at the Central Library. The Committee reviewed over 50
qualification proposals from various architectural firms, local, national, and international.
After careful consideration, the Design Committee recommended five (5) design finalists to the City Council. City
Council approved the top five finalists and awarded a $50,000 stipend to each firm to develop their design
proposal based on the General Design Parameters. Later, each firm would make a presentation as to its
proposal for the City Hall and Park.
In late summer 2008, the finalists presented their design concepts over two public Design Committee meetings.
There were also three additional meetings for public discussion of the presented design concepts. One was a 12-
hour meeting on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at the City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard —
open to the public and with full presentations by the five design teams (see Exhibit D-agenda for this meeting).
The Design Committee ranked the finalists and recommended Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCI) of San Francisco as
the top firm, with LPA second. BCJ's team included a number of subcontractors, including Peter Walker
Partners (PWP) as landscape architect, and ARUP as civil engineers. After a detailed discussion, the City Council
approved that recommendation and awarded a contract to BCD's team to further develop their conceptual plan
on January 13,2009.
Concurrent with the design competition, the City Council stated that it wanted the private sector to manage this
project, and that it should be done as "Construction Manager at Risk" (CM@R). Additionally, the Council
wanted the construction manager to have a public low-bid process (with pre-qualification to ensure quality) for
the various elements of the Project.
These elements — like glass, steel, drywall, electrical, and more - ultimately became sixty (60) public bid
packages, responses to which had to be opened in a local hotel's conference center to accommodate the crowds
in November- December 2010.
The City Council's three-member Building Committee (Council Members Selich, Rosansky, and Webb) with City
staff conducted a selection process to hire the program manager to dig in early with the architect to help
oversee Project design. This added to the planning costs, as the program manager was compensated for all of
this time, but the goal was to ensure a project that was efficient and constructible.
At the same time, the Building Committee was reorganized to include the same three Council members and
three members of the Design Committee, whose work had ended. Following another request for qualifications
process (RFQ versus an RFP) and interviews, seven firms were considered for selection as construction manager.
The top firm was determined to be C.W. Driver.
At a public meeting on January 13, 2009, the City Council approved a contract with C.W. Driver to manage the
design process. Starting soon after hiring, C.W. Driver, BCJ, and various City staff met on a regular basis to
develop the final concept with periodic consultation with the Building Committee. At the same time, the City
Council hired consultants to provide the detailed environmental analysis, documentation and technical support
for the project.
As an aside here,the major design phases of any large project are:
• Concept Design (CD)
• Schematic Design/Design Development (SD/DD)
• Construction Documents (CD)
Then the architect usually participates in "construction support" during the construction phase, responding to
"requests for information" (RFIs) as the project is built. The Newport Beach Civic Center project actually had a
pre-Concept Design phase in addition to the above, thanks to the design competition.
At the conclusion of the Concept Design, staff and the architect presented a proposed concept to the City
Council at a noticed public meeting for public discussion and approval. The concept included an:
• An 85,000 square foot City Hall office building
• A 5,250 SF Community Room
• A 6,750 SF Council Chambers
• A 450-space,four level parking structure
• A 17,000 SF expansion to the Newport Beach Central Library, including an expanded Children's section, a
cafe for Library patrons, a media lab, a sound lab, and a full second entrance connecting the Central Library
with the Civic Center
• A 14-acre passive park utilizing a combination of native plants and low water or "California friendly"
plantings with public walkways, a dog park, a pedestrian bridge over San Miguel, elements for kids to play
on, and a restored wetlands.
This is Where the Rabbits Come In. And there is a story behind the rabbits, which we relay in Exhibit D.
More about the size of the Civic Center's office building. As a brief sidebar, we often hear about concerns over
the size of the Civic Center as compared to the plan that was proposed at the old location. The plan at the old
site including a Council Chambers and Community room proposed a floor plan of about 72,000 SF with
consideration for future expansion to 80,000 SF. Our new site including the Council Chamber, Community
room, an EOC is about 100,000 SF. Here are the reasons for the differences:
• The design at the old site had all of the mechanical equipment (heating&AC) on the roof. A combination of
the General Design Parameters height limitation and the chosen wave roof design, it was necessary to put
an additional 6,OOOSF of mechanical space in the new building.
• The former design envisioned more external circulation and less direct public access to the various City
Departments (the plan called for walking through some departments to get to others). The current design
has internal public walkways directly to each department and adds another 6000 SF.
• Our new building has more vertical circulation or stairwells than what was proposed in the old plan (+1000
SF)
• We also added a 3,000 SF EOC to our current facility.
• The former plan had 10 conference rooms. Our design team did an assessment based upon the annual
meetings scheduled (from our reservation system) and determined that we would need about 15
conference rooms and a hearing room. Although by personal observation we don't seem to have any
scheduling problems,so we could have lived with a few less.This added approximately 5,000 SF more.
• Another factor that added space was the narrowness of our site. Our new building is long and not deep,
which helps at natural light, but is not the most efficient shape for office space. Square floor plans are
generally the most efficient shape as it balances the circulation space required for a given work space. The
former site was closer to that ideal.
Adding the additional space from the above More about Cost Estimating
list the difference shrinks to approximately
7,000 SF and less depending on what value is Before the start of the design process in March 2009,an
assigned to the building shape inefficiency. independent construction estimator,C.P.O'Halloran Associates,
The majority of this additional space is prepared a Preliminary Concept Cost Estimate.
attributable to the public spaces which have
generous waiting areas. The General Design The estimated cost of Project construction at that time was
Parameters set the employee space at 200-250 $107,633,286 without contingencies. With the addition of
SF per employee. The actual employee space estimated design, project management,environmental
is calculated at 187 SF per employee based documentation, ancillary costs including furniture,the preliminary
upon the current employee count. budget was$140 million.
During the subsequent design process,the design team,staff, and
Our Timeline — Mid-2009. The City Council the Building Committee meet regularly to guide the project. A
approved the concept and authorized significant part of those meetings explored ways to reduce
contracts with BG and C.W. Driver to continue potential costs through value engineering and phasing.
with the schematic design and design
development (SD/DD) phases of the project At the November 10,2009 Council meeting,staff shared the
design on April 14, 2009. current costs. At that meeting staff shared the possible scenarios
from conservative to very optimistic.The very optimistic estimates
During the SD/DD process, groups associated envisioned:
with the Library and other community
• Being able to sell or give away the dirt from the excavation at advocates from CERT asked the Council to a savings of$4 million;
• An additional 10%reduction for a better bid environment of
consider a larger community room and a large $9 million;
Emergency Operations Center (EOC). There . Additional value engineering at$5 million; and
were several Council meetings and study . Phasing the bridge and North Park parcels for a later project at
sessions that: $7 million.
• Set the final size of the community room Additional cost estimates were run at each stage of the project
(at 5,250 SF including storage and a design. At the conclusion of the Design Development phase(April
catering kitchen). 2010)another estimate by the same firm showed the construction
• Added an EOC (of 3,000 SF) in the cost to be$102,779,710. An estimate in October 2010 by C. P.
basement level. O'Halloran showed the cost to be$103,816,895.
• Discussed "value engineering' of the C.W. Driver also ran an independent estimate in October 2010 and
facility's construction; and their projected cost was$106,796,863.
• Discussed potential phasing for the
Project, including the proposed pedestrian Despite our hopeful thinking,the final bid totaled $106,504,125
which was very close to the preliminary estimate in 2009.
bridge connecting the North Park and Dog Park to the central portion of the park.
Importantly, the phasing discussions at the time looked through several scenarios that might reduce Project
costs. At the Council meeting of November 10, 2009, we talked with the Council and community about the
range of all-in costs, and suggested that these hard and soft costs (and contingencies) could be up to $140
million. In addition to the public meetings,the Building Committee continued its periodic meetings to guide the
design process.
On November 24, 2009, City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project and, in a
change of plans, authorized C.W. Driver to prepare a Design-Build request for proposals (RFP) to solicit bids to
design and construct the 450-space parking structure separate from other scopes of work. The thinking at the
time was that it would be less costly to design-build the parking structure, given the large amount of local
qualified firms who could do that kind of work.
The SD/DD plans were completed in early April 2010. Along with the SD/DD plans, the grading plans were
prepared as a separate project phase to enable the timely export of over 200,000 cubic yards of fill and the
construction of a shoring wall to prepare the site—including the parking structure-for facility construction.
During this same time, the national and local economy was suffering greatly from the recession — many firms
doing large infrastructure work were hungry for projects. We had extensive discussions about this unique time
to build, when labor and materials were relatively inexpensive.
On April 27, 2010 the City Council approved the Civic Center's SD/DD plans along with a contract amendment
with BCJ to proceed with the preparation of construction documents (CD). At the same meeting, Council
continued program design management with C.W. Driver and executed the construction manager at risk
contract with C.W. Driver.
More about Construction Manager at Risk — CM@R. CM@R is an "alternative project delivery method" that
has a proven track record with reducing costs and delays that many municipalities and state agencies have used
with great success. The CM@R process allows a quality based selection (versus having to accept low bid) of the
Construction Manager (CM), but it allows for competitive bidding by pre-qualified sub-contractors for the
various components of the project. The CM@R process also provides a Guaranteed Maximum Price for the
project. The CM@R process is as follows:
• The City requests proposals from interested construction management firms, interviews the top firms,and
selects the best qualified firm.
• The City negotiates a contract with the firm that includes four components:
✓ Component#1: Basic Services or General Conditions. These include the fixed costs for the construction
field office (including construction trailers, office equipment, portable restrooms, copiers, computers,
telephone and equipment) and the necessary personnel to staff the project (including superintendent,
inspection and support staff). These fixed costs are billed on a "time and materials" basis at a cost "not
to exceed" a certain amount. Based upon our project concluding in January of 2013, our Basic Services
were set at a cost not to exceed $7,169,255.
✓ Component #2: The actual cost of the construction work. The cost of the work will be set as a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The GMP will include the actual, opened bid prices of the
competitive bid packages plus an internal contingency. Under the CM@R project delivery method, the
construction manager bids out the various construction trade contracts in accordance with the Public
Contract Code and oversight from the City Clerk. The City Council then approves the expenditure at a
public meeting and accepts the construction manager's GMP proposal for the work. The Construction
Manager is then responsible for delivering all work and construction included in the approved work
scope for the maximum cost stated in the GMP. Any costs exceeding the GMP will be borne by
Construction Manager. Any savings under the GMP will be shared by the City and Construction
Manager. The Civic Center& Park project was set up with the City receiving 75%of any savings and C.W.
Driver receiving 25% of any savings as an incentive to reduce overall costs. However, additional work
added to the project by the City or caused by unforeseen problems are generally except from the GMP.
✓ Component #3: Direct Expenses. These include the direct costs for bond premiums; general liability
insurance; and additional services as requested by the City. Direct expenses include known costs and
allowances for variable items, and are not marked up —they are passed along at the direct cost of the
Construction Manager.
✓ Component #4: Project fees to manage the construction. These construction management fees
represent the markup, overhead, and profit for the Construction Manager. The Basic Services, Direct
Expenses, and GMP represent actual costs without any markups, overhead or profit. The rate for the
Civic Center & Park construction management fee was set at 3.25% for the entire project, which is fairly
typical—even on the low side—for a project of this scope.
Parking Structure, Mass Excavation, and Shoring Wall. Also at the April 27, 2010 meeting, the City Council
authorized the first phase of construction, and started to build the Project as well as the CM@R Contract with
CW Driver—the CM@R contract gets built in phases,just like the Project.
The first part of the CM@R Contract was the Mass Excavation and Shoring Wall Construction, at a guaranteed
maximum price (GMP) of $ 7,336,439. Phase 1's work was completed by late August 2010. Concurrently, the
City and C.W. Driver received bids from the three pre-qualified bidders to design-build the 450-space parking
structure. On September 14, 2010, the City Council approved Amendment #1 to C.W. Driver's contract to
design-build the parking structure with Borne] Construction as a subcontractor. The amendment added
$7,426,853 to the GMP.
As that work proceeded, bid packages for the various trades started being released to pre-qualified bidders for
the City Hall Office Building, the Central Library Expansion, and the park. This process continued in Fall 2010,
and all bids we received and tallied by the end of January 2011. C.W. Driver packaged those bids for the second
amendment to the GMP.
More about COPs and Bonded Debt. In 2010, the City had about $80 million in reserves, some designated for
specific purposes and a minimal amount of outstanding debt. In accordance with the recommendations of the
Facilities Finance Review Committee and the approved Facilities Financing Plan, it was determined that the City
had sufficient debt capacity to finance the remaining portion of the Civic Center Project without effecting
ongoing services or reserves.
Following a vigorous review by all three bond rating agencies, Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Fitch, the city
was awarded AAA underlying bond ratings by all three bond rating agencies. This is the highest rating
achievable and Newport Beach become one of only five California cities to achieve this distinction. The bond
ratings confirmed the ability of the City to undertake the financing without a tax increase.
Because the Facilities Financing Plan confirmed that the financing could be accomplished without raising taxes,
the City chose to use Certificates of Participation (COPs) as the financing vehicle for the Civic Center. General
Obligation (GO) Bonds, the other alternative, requires voter approval because the issuance includes an
authorization to add a levy on the property tax to pay for the debt. This was not necessary in the case of the
Civic Center. COPS utilize a lease structure, and have been the most commonly used technique in California to
finance municipal improvements since 1978,following court validating decisions.
During the two year period 2009-2010, Congress had authorized Build America Bonds (BABs) as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Congress' goal was to Federally support local public works
improvements and thus create jobs. The City took advantage of ARRA in other ways, too — for the remaining
$18M to complete Upper Bay's dredging and for money to replace streetlights (and more).
BABs are taxable bonds. However, the Federal Government agrees to pay 35%of the interest cost for the life of
the bond issue. In our case, this amounts to a subsidy of $2.35 million annually. The City, like all municipal
issuers at the time, conducted a cost-benefit analysis during the bond pricing process and determined that for
the great majority of the debt issued, BABS would be less costly (by approximately $750,000 annually in debt
service),than traditional tax exempt bonds.
Also during the bond pricing, because of near record low interest rates, we determined that the outstanding
debt related to the (1992) library COPS in the amount of($10 million) could be refunded for savings of$120,000
annually. This component was added to the transaction.
The total par size of the transaction was $127 million, of which $116,515,000 remains outstanding. The net debt
service payment to the city is$8.32 million or 4.7%of general fund revenues.
It's 2011 Now. On February 22, 2011, the City Council approved this Amendment #2 to the GMP to add the
construction of the City Hall Office building, the library expansion, and the park to C.W. Driver's Construction
Manager at Risk contract.
At this time, Council decided to add the construction of the pedestrian bridge over San Miguel Drive back into
the Project for an additional $2 million. However, one million of the additional cost was funded within C.W.
Driver's internal construction contingency, so the net cost to the City was only$1 million (GMP Amendment#3).
Plan Check and Inspection. Importantly, at the same time as the bids were awarded,the City made the decision
to NOT use our qualified in-house staff to plan check and inspect the Civic Center project. This action added
about $1.5M in defined cost to the Project, but to us it was worth it—it protected the rest of Newport Beach's
residents and business owners from delays in reviewing plans for and inspecting their private home remodels
and other construction projects. The City Council authorized outsourcing the building plan check and building
official services for the Civic Center project to Anderson-Penna/Interwest at a cost of$1,426,285.
On April 24, 2012,The City Council approved Amendment#4 to the CM@R contract with C.W. Driver for smaller
items like project signage and dry utility connections (Gas, Electric, Data) in the amount of$476,281. This work
was not included in the original contracts. The signage design work was delayed and could not be bid with the
other bid packages, however, this late addition did not affect the construction schedule. The dry utility work,
primarily SCE, was problematic in that SCE revised their design late in the schedule to reflect actual field
conditions. This work did cause some delay in the overall schedule.
Amendment #5 to the CM@R contract was
approved by City Council on October 23, F Central Library Clerestory Windows
2012. During the construction demolition
process on the north wall of the existing
Central Library, it was discovered that the
existing clerestory window system — built
back in 1994 and at a location that had a
persistent water leak - was failing. The New Side Old Side
failure (and possibly incorrect installation)
was the cause of the ongoing storm water
leakage problems.
The original Project plans called for reuse of
the clerestory windows, but it was quickly
determined that a full replacement was
needed. This cost another $720,913. This problem along with other miscellaneous existing problems with the
structure eventually cost the Project another$1.5 million inclusive of design and related costs.
About Furnishings. Near the end of the project, City staff and BCJ interior designers established selection
criteria for the City Hall and Library's furniture,fixtures and equipment(FF&E).
The criteria focused on balancing cost, quality, ergonomics, sustainability, and effectiveness in creating a
professional and efficient workplace. Additionally, the City had stopped major purchases of furnishings in
advance of the move to the Civic Center, assuming that we would save expense by not moving new furnishings
from one location to another—we'd just wait until the new facility opened.
After much research, the team selected four (4) furniture manufacturers/vendors on the basis of their
experience, availability of local dealerships, references, and the ability to participate in government pricing
programs. Each vendor representing a manufacturer was invited to bid on each piece of furniture. On June 26,
2012, city Council approved several FF&E bid packages totaling $2,755,000 for the Civic Center and $525,521 for
the Central Library expansion. More about furnishings is Exhibit E.
Move-In and Final Efforts. The City moved into the new facility in early April 2013. Work continued on minor
items and the EOC with the completion of all work by June 2013. C.W. Driver requested that the City cover their
extended Basic Service/General conditions costs beyond the original completion date of January 2013. Staff
negotiated extended general conditions in the amount of $1,400,000 representing discounted fixed costs from
January 2013 through May 2013. City Council approved those costs on October 8, 2013.
...and Finally. The final cost of the Civic Center & Park project less the Library repair costs was $140,214,967
including "all in" cost such as design, environmental, project management, construction support, inspection,
change orders,and FF&E.
Hard Construction Share of Soft Costs
Percentage of Costs(including including design& Total cost by
Civic Center Facilities Overall cost Change Orders) mngt FF&E OCIP Facility
Mass Excavation and Shoring Wall 7% $8,033,927 $ 1,555,788 $ 132,229 $ 9,721,945
Parking Structure 7% $7,549,072 $ 1,461,895 $ 124,249 $ 9,135,216
Park 13% $15,219,881 $ 2,947,365 $ 250,502 $ 18,417,748
Library addition and repair 11% $12,909,468 $ 2,499,948 $ 525,521 $ 212,475 $ 16,147,412
City Hall 51% $58,251,156 $ 11,280,470 $ 2,570,000 5 958,747 S 73,060,374
EOC 1 2% $2,055,923 $ "11,134 $ 85,000 $ 33,838 $ 2,572,895
Community Room 3% $3,597,866 $ 696,735 $ 50,000 $ 59,217 $ 4,403,818
Council Chambers 1 4% $4,625,82715 895,8021 $ 50,000 $ 76,136 $ 5,647,765
San Miguel Bridge 1 2% $2,159,6271 $ 418,023 1 35,529 1 5 2,612,179
100% $114,401,747 $ 22,154,161 $ 3,280,521 1,882,922 $ 141,719,351
Ubrary Repairs= $ 1,504,384
*Total Cost less Ubrary Repairs= $ 140,214,967
In More Detail
More about Schedule. The Timeline in Exhibit F shows the City Hall — Civic Center journey of over 12 years
from start to finish. There were over 100 separate Council meetings & study sessions, public committee
meetings or public workshops. In addition to the public meetings, countless presentations were made to
community associations, service groups, and business associations.
The original project schedule developed by C.W. Driver required a 6-8 month window of excavation and a 24-
month window to construct the project. We were fortunate that nothing surprised us during the mass
excavation of the site except a minor issue with drilling through rock. Our archaeological and environmental
monitoring consultants found no issues.
One issue that was significant was the tight window we had to get in the queue to fabricate the project's steel
structure. Because of the complexity of the design, many questions were asked in the form of RFIs (Request for
Information) by the steel fabricator. Unfortunately, the clarification and additional information needed to
resolve these RFIs caused us to miss our fabrication window.
C.W. Driver worked diligently to recover some of the time, but ultimately we lost about three months total time
— and later the steel contractor filed a delay claim. Other minor delays also occurred such as the dry utilities
issues discussed above and various weather delays.
Overall with the exception of the steel fabrication issue, the project proceeded well. The construct and design
teams worked hard to bring us back on track after each minor schedule issue.
More about Change Orders and Contingency Amounts. If you spend any time with an architect, engineer, or
builder and you'll hear them say "there's no such thing as a perfect set of plans." Change orders become a
necessary (if unwelcome) part of any project. They certainly were part of this Project, although remarkably they
stayed within industry averages. The Civic Center and Park project experienced contractual changes of about
6.1%of project cost. Change orders fell into these categories:
1. Building Code compliance
2. Unforeseen changes
3. Design enhancements
4. Items omitted from the original contract plans.
Typically, a Project's contingency fund(s) would accommodate change orders. But with this Project, well before
the City entered the project's construction phase, the project team and City Council deliberately set an
ambitious goal of keeping contingencies very low - at 2.5% ($2,623,000) of the total construction cost. We
optimistically (and maybe foolishly)thought we could beat the odds, and also didn't want to open the door to a
free-spending contingency.
The first big impact to the $2.6M Owner's Contingency came when the City reinforced the importance of the
missing Pedestrian Bridge — it was in the initial plans but not part of the first phase of the Project. It would
connect the two park parcels—it would help people use both parks, and would help to keep traffic moving along
San Miguel by reducing street-level pedestrian crossings. Addition of the bridge to the Project reduced the
contingency fund to$1.6 million.
Despite considerable effort and oversight, the amount of contract change orders went from the initial goal of
2.5% of the total construction cost to about six percent (6%). As noted, six percent is a typical contingency
amount for a construction project of this magnitude.To help put the contingency amount in perspective, there
were about 750 separate project change orders, and most of those were under$10,000 each. Change orders by
dollar and category were:
Newport Beach Civic Center
Change Order Category Amount %of Total
Building Code/ City Requirements $730,000 11.2%
Unforeseen Conditions $470,000 7.2%
Design Enhancement $1,000,000 15.4%
Design Omission $4,300,000 66.2%
Total Change Orders $6,500,000
The largest percentage of change orders occurred in the design omission category. These were 4%of the overall
construction cost. Here's where an important "lesson learned" comes in. The City team put the bid packages
out to bid in November and December 2010 with some design work not fully complete. This was done to take
advantage of what we assumed was a brief (and closing) window of lower labor and materials costs due to the
significant downturn in the national economy.
We feel we rushed it. From a design perspective, the design team likely needed an additional three to six
months to refine the construction documents, and they told us this. That action likely contributed the level of
design omissions. But at the same time, we guessed correctly that the construction costs would rise.
The Engineering News-Record's Cost Index ("ENR Cost Index") increased 3.6% from September 2010 (bidding
period) to May 2011 —that translates into $3.8 million for this Project's cost elements. If we can assume that
any plans would have had at least 2% of design omission issues, we probably came out ahead by $1.5 million.
We understand that this action is worthy of discussion and a second review.
More about Cost. Overall, we were fortunate to time the project during the economic downturn when costs
were lower, work was slow, contractors were hungry, and the cost of financing was also low. According to the
ENR Building Cost index,the project construction cost would have been 12% higher or$13 million more today.
One negative with the slow economy was that our grading costs were higher than we thought. Few other
projects were going on, so no one locally needed our excess dirt (we had hoped—optimistically—that we could
find someone to "take our dirt for free"). The dirt is now in Irvine, but it went there at our cost. During good
economic times there are usually construction projects that will take the dirt for free. The cost here was about
$7 million (200,000 cubic yards or 15,000 truckloads). During the busiest trucking time, a huge dirt hauler was
moving out of the site every 30 seconds. A more detailed cost spreadsheet is Exhibit G.
We do think that the City and community got a well-made, well-designed, civic center project — a project that
really was four or five major efforts wrapped into one big project. Doing them separately — at various times —
would have been logistically challenging and significantly more costly. However, we recognize that many in the
community may not have wanted the four or five major efforts at all, or didn't follow the major scope changes
from 2008 and 2009. For those citizens, the project's scope and cost created anger and frustration with us and
the project.
What are our Lessons Learned?
Public Process
• While we met a lot and talked a lot and wrote a lot, a portion of the population never got the message that
this was no longer just a city hall. Additionally, the attendance at the various public meetings and
workshops never exceeded 100 people. And often the same people. Lesson: You can never give out too
much good information. We need to continue exploring new ways to get information to the public and
generate interest in participating.
• Because of the tight contingency amounts, the impression at the end was that the change orders were
unreasonably high for a project of this scope (only 6%). Yet at the same time, we wanted folks not to think
that a fat contingency was there for the using/asking. However, if the contingency was a more typical
amount, the change orders would have been accommodated just like in any other project. Lesson: Stick
with industry standards on contingency percentages.
• We could have briefed the Council and community more frequently on construction updates, including
change orders and hurdles crossed —this could have added to the public's understanding of Project Scope.
Lesson: You can never give out too much good information.
• While we attended and made presentations at many HOAs, service groups, and business association
gatherings, we could have had a more active Speaker's Bureau about the design parameters,the project and
its scope change,and expected expense. Lesson: You can never give out too much good information.
• The campaign in support of Measure B (Feb 2008) — done without City input or support — left the project
with an unrealistic and ill-defined cost perception in the community — were the dollars quoted by the
proponents at the time the "all in" cost? Was it just construction? Did it take into account really costly
things like California's water quality protection standards for new construction (these alone added about
$2M to the project). Did they realize that excavating the dirt to protect views and grade the site would cost
$7 million? No one knows today. No matter what it included, was the cost even based on construction
reality? The City itself was not behind Measure B, but we're not sure how many people know that. Lesson:
We should have spoken up sooner to question the costs used in that campaign, and you can never give out
too much good information.
Public Impressions
• We did not have a message that explained how the scope of the project changed after the Design
Parameters were adopted in mid-2008. Lesson: Communicate more frequently with the media and public
about the project.
• We were tone-deaf about aspects of the project that would become lightning rods— the kids' elements,the
cafe. Lesson: Giant white rabbits might possibly too much for Newport Beach.
• We should have strategized these issues more as a project team — what are we doing that could become a
lightning rod issue? Does it matter to us that it could? Lesson: Spend part of every project team meeting
with the public information folks asking how elements will appear to our residents.
Early Design Period
• Robert Schafer of CW Driver always was accurate and cautious with us about what the rolling cost estimate
was. He ended up being among the smartest guys in the room, and was right in the end. I (Dave K) often
pushed us to be aggressively low with the use of contingencies, to market fast given the state of the
labor/materials market, and overly optimistic as to whether the dirt would be trucked away to a needy
residential project for free. That optimism assumed this project could beat the odds and come in under
Robert's realistic/conservative projections. Lesson: Use the conservative, not the optimistic, cost projection.
• The design competition set up expectations for an amazing project, and we got one. But much of the public
was not as engaged in the competition as it could have been, and never followed with the project scope
changes following the Measure B election. That noted, it is understandable and appropriate that the public
could have stepped back from following this project, trusting that their city staff would apply reason and
efficiency to the effort. While it may surprise some for us to say this, we think we did. We can, however,
understand and respect how residents might feel otherwise. Lesson: you can never give out too much good
information.
• While the design competition gave us an iconic facility, it was also problematic as it set the look and
associated construction type without a clear, fixed eye to the potential costs. Once the Design Committee,
Council and those community members following the Project embraced the proposed concept, it was
difficult to predict the "All-In" cost until we were much further into the project design. Going from a
relatively modest to conservative "tilt up" box construction in 2001 at the old City Hall site to a modern,
glassy, tiered structure with a wave roof was a bold change— but it was also an expressed desire with those
following the project. Lesson: Be aware that starting with visual concept makes it difficult to change course
at later stages of a project.
• To say it another way, the project itself grew significantly between the Measure B election and the adoption
of the Design Parameters. The approach for the project was "this is the one time in multiple generations
that several needed concerns (larger library, an EOC, more parking, etc) can be addressed at once, in a down
economy when labor and materials are cheap"versus "this is how much money we have for this project and
that's all we'll spend." (ENR Building Cost Index: April 2010. 5068.58;Today, 5688.50; 12.2% increase) There
could have been more of a balance between these two approaches. Lesson: this is a community that
probably embraces the latter approach versus the former.
• Size of the City Hall. The City Hall was designed in 2008-09 for a number of employees that is higher than we
have today,though not much higher (there are about 5-8 unused workstations). There was a sea change in
our approach to the size of our local government in the middle of the Project's phasing. As the design was
completed, it was quite late to trim things back without significant expense to reflect this new smaller
government. Additionally, we needed space for outsourced staff to work in a central location to serve the
customers. We also suffered in the old City Hall from an embarrassing lack of conference and meeting space
for the public as well as staff. Space per employee is in line with or less than industry standards, but that
doesn't mean it's not worth reviewing in future buildings. Lesson: While I'm not sure we could have
predicted the future for the drop in employees from 833 FTE to 729 FTE, this all could have been
communicated a lot better. However, the up side is that additional space can be repurposed,possibly to be a
potential revenue generator.
Construction Process
• Did the CM at Risk method with a separate contract with the architect (BCJ ) as well as with the construction
company (CW Driver) result in no one entity (except the City) "owning" the product, the schedule, and
budget? Would "design-build" have been better? In hindsight Probably not. Our research, which was
presented to Council in 2005, showed that CM@Risk project delivery method was superior in holding costs
down and keeping schedule over design build and traditional design-bid-build. One variation of the "at Risk"
method called Program Manager at Risk might have helped. This variation is similar to CM@R but with the
architect contract assigned to the Program Manager. Contractually, the architect would have more
responsibility to hold their design to the project budget. However, many architects will not agree to the
assignment of their contract to a program manager.
• Timing of the bid preparation, bid award—was this part of the schedule rushed?
o In order to take advantage of what we thought was a bottom of the construction trades market as well
as a very low interest rate environment for the COPS, we went out to bid with construction
specifications not yet in final form. This was an accurate assumption as to the market, but it had a cost
as well as a benefit. The ENR Cost index increased 3.6% from September 2010 (bidding period) to May
2011, or approx. $3.8 million savings. Our Change orders were 6% or $6.5 million. While our change
orders were within industry standard, 5-10%, its doubtful that we would have exceeded $3.8 million
savings by not waiting an additional six months to refine the plans Lesson: We don't really know
whether this action saved as much as it cost and hindsight remains 20/20. However, 1 would not go to
market again without finalized contract documents based on approved bids in the current cost
environment.
o We shot for a December 2012 first meeting date in the new CC chambers, and that impacted the project
schedule and project costs adversely. Construction management costs were higher (about six months
at $250,000/month) in part because of it — especially managing staff, officials, and visitors on a regular
basis in an active construction site. The rush to be present at the facility in December '12 may have
caused CW Driver to re-order some processes that were not as cost-effective as following a less rushed
plan. Lesson: Don't stubbornly adhere to a schedule unless common sense dictates it.
• Requests for Information (RFIs - these are clarifications of design questions that the contractor has of the
architect). The architect's contract did not specify a turnaround time for RFIs. While most RFIs were
processed in accordance with industry standards, a defined turnaround time may have led to better
communication and expectations on that time. Lesson: Have on agreed-upon turnaround time for RFIs and
how to deal with exceptions.
• Insurance. We provided insurance at both the contractor's level and the project owner's level. This added
to the cost, and while it was very conservative in protecting us against claims (they were minimal), it was
probably too conservative and costly. Lesson: Stick with one or the other—on OCIP ora CCIP.
• Change Orders
o Were we able to minimize the change orders that would have occurred because of incomplete designs?
66% or approx. $4.3 million of the change orders were attributable to errors and missing information in
the plans. Most changes were minor but many in number. In the construction industry "there's no such
thing as a perfect set of plans." Even if we could have reduced that number by half, we were still ahead
due to construction cost inflation.
o Did the City itself contribute to the problem by making changes/improvements mid-stream, such as
design enhancements? Yes, the design enhancements represented 15.4% or$1 million. However, many
of the changes were smarter long-term moves such as revising the roof edge paint finish to minimize
glare to the adjacent neighbors or upgrading materials to increase the life cycle and lower maintenance
costs. The remaining $1.2 million was attributable to Building code requirements and unforeseen
problems. Sometimes these changes are inevitable, and it can be foolhardy to ignore good
improvements with a flat rule against change orders.
• Lesson: Assign an appropriate contingency amount plus a more regular and transparent update to
the public and decision-makers.
• Furnishings. Even as the City stopped making major investments in purchasing chairs, desks, tables, and
related furnishings about five years before the move to the new facility, we didn't estimate these savings as
an offset to new purchases for the new City Hall. We also would have had to pay the expense of moving the
old furniture over — this was avoided, too. And while quality furnishings pay for themselves in avoided
repair costs for equipment with poorer warrantees, the chair pricing was viewed as an example of
government excess, and we don't blame people for thinking that. Lesson: Be more analytical in comparing
lifecycle costs in our purchasing, acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits in doing so and
communicate those options to the decision makers.
Project Completion
• At the end of the project, a number of contractors were in the wings complaining about delay costs they had
allegedly incurred because of the project's carefully orchestrated schedule. We thought most—if not all—of
these delay claims were not supported by the record, especially given the recession (i.e., even if there were
delays, there was no other work out there for these contractors to pursue). We could have litigated and
fought back. While we fought the claims hard administratively, and the work done to minimize end-of-
project claims was admirable, how could that process have been improved? We could have aggressively
entertained a legal strategy on the claims, but sometimes the risk of losing the judgment outweighs the
defense costs.
o Lesson: We should have briefed the public and Council earlier on the possibility of delay claims. We
should have involved the City Attorney's office earlier in the process about possible non-litigation
strategies in dealing with the claimants.
Overall Analysis
• The Good:
o This project accomplished five separate projects (City Hall, 15-acre Park, Library Expansion, Parking
Structure, Pedestrian Bridge) which, if constructed separately at separate times, are likely to have
cost significantly more as stand-alone projects. Some of them, such as the library expansion, may
have been physically impossible at another time because of the site constraints.
o There was a cost savings in going to the bond market when we did, as well as being able to take
advantage of the BABs subsidy.
o There was a cost savings in constructing(labor and materials)the project during the downturn in the
economy, although one aspect (the dirt removal —at about $7 million in cost) was not any cheaper
because no one else was out there building things and needing the dirt"for free."
o The CM@R delivery method created a strong and open partnership that worked together with a
common goal. The design group—architect, construction manager, and City—worked together well
and did not have any disputes at the end of the Project. Had we utilized traditional design bid build
approach we would have potentially had an adversarial relationship between the contractor, City
and architect that could have resulted in substantial costs, overruns, delays, and claims.
o There appears to be great use by the Newport Beach community and satisfaction of the five Project
elements following completion of the Project.
• The Not-So-Good:
o The "lessons learned" as previously listed.
o The Measure B Feb 2008 campaign may not have had strong cost analyses — especially for the soft
costs, the EIR, the Park, and more. As a result, it offered an undefinable cost for a vague project.
The public understandably expected this cost at the end.
o The public was not brought along with the changes in the Project scope as it grew and changed from
the "just a City Hall" at 3300 Newport Boulevard,from as early as 2008.
o We should have revised the design competition to include a very preliminary cost estimate from the
designers -even if it would have increased the stipends. The design completion led many to want to
achieve the Project's look before firmly knowing the cost. When the cost became more finalized,we
were well down the road to undo things without considerable redesign cost.
o The architect was creative and innovative, but designed a project plan that some in our community
see as overly grand. We acknowledge that many Newport Beach residents enjoy seeing grand
buildings, but might wish something more austere for their public halls of government.
o The rabbits were included in the landscape package and we were not aware of the line item cost.
Looking back, we should have requested a more detailed breakdown. If we had known the line item
cost, we probably would have deleted or replaced them with something more modest. However, in
the project team's defense, there were literally thousands of moving parts to this project and it was
moving very quickly. More of our focus was on the bigger ticket items that could prove disastrous if
mishandled.
o We should have spent more time providing Council and the public with the lifecycle costs for
furnishings. Perhaps there was a better balance between short term and long term costs, but the
decision should have been more transparent.
o The contingency percentage amounts were too tight for a project of this complexity. We should
have been more realistic and set the overall contingency between 5 and 10%, probably 8%.
However, we didn't want to encourage the contractor and sub-contractors that there was more
money to be made.
Summary of Exhibits:
A— Memo from Mr. Murphy
B— Measure B Mailer
C— Design Parameters
D—Civic Center Rabbits
E —More about Furnishings
F—Civic Center Expenditure Detail
Exhibit A: Memo from Mr. Murphy
MEMORANDUM
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
From: Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager
Date: April 24, 1998
RE: CITY HALL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND:
On March 23rd the City Council referred the discussion of the preparation of a comprehensive City Hall
Needs Assessment to a future Study Session. This action followed a recommendation by the City
Council Finance Committee to prepare a comprehensive study of the City Hall complex and defer the
Fire and Marine/City Attorney Office Remodeling project, which was approved in the 1997-98 Budget.
I Conversation with several City Councilmembers following the action on March 23rd, it is apparent
that a major reason for the request for a Study Session is to allow time to discuss several aspects of the
recommendation including: (1) a concern regarding the projected costs of a comprehensive study; (2) a
concern regarding the scope of the study; (3) a concern that judgments have already been made
regarding the future of City Hall (e.g. remodel/rehabilitate/or move off site).
DISCUSSION:
The City Hall complex was originally constructed in 1948 and has been modified and altered
substantially since its original construction. Additional buildings in the complex have been constructed
to house the Planning, Building and portions of the Public Works Department. The complex originally
housed the Police Department until the construction of the new Police Facility in 1974. The area which
housed the Police Department now houses a portion of the Community Services Department and the
MIS and Telecommunications Division of the Administrative Services Department. The Building now
occupied by the City
Attorney, Fire Administrative offices, the MIS Division of Administrative Services and the City's print
shop operation has been added onto many times over the years. Operations within the Main Building
have been moved to accommodate the space needs of various operations including Personnel and the
Revenue Division of Administrative Services.
1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the City Hall complex and as we look forward
to the next century and beyond at all areas of our City infrastructure it is also important that we review
the current and future needs of the City Hall facility to serve the residents of the City. The City has
changed dramatically since 1948, and the one constant in life is change. The City of Newport Beach will
continue to evolve and change in the future. 1948 the City's land area was only 4.23 square miles with
a population of 12,120.
Today, the City is a major corporation with a $120 million operating budget and 670 employees. We
will be in operation serving the community forever and it is essential that we, not unlike our
counterparts in the private sector, take stock of our facilities in a comprehensive fashion and
determine how best to serve our customer from our corporate headquarters.
Efforts to remodel or rehabilitate City Hall should be undertaken in a planned and coordinated fashion,
rather than in a piecemeal and disjointed manner. Currently, the City isn't staffed with professional
space or facilities planners. Since this isn't a regular part of our business it doesn't make sense to retain
employees to handle this type of work. Icontrast, Rockwelllnternational, located on Jamboree Road,
has a staff that handles all space planning needs and building maintenance activities, supplemented by
professional architects and engineers who prepare plans and specifications when specific projects are
identified. For a corporation holding 1 million square feet of space that is constantly changing and
evolving this makes sense.
In 1990 the City completed a renovation plan for the City Hall complex which examined the needs in
1990 and in the year 2000. The study, prepared by The Blurock Partnership produced a draft
renovation/site plan which would have demolished older parts of the complex, including the Fire and
Marine/City Attorney wing and added a net 5,510 square feet. The City Council took no action on this
plan when it was delivered in December 1990.
Today, I'm suggesting that the City Council consider the undertaking of a comprehensive and careful
process to look at our space and facility needs well beyond the year 2000. Our business of providing
local government services isn't going to go away. We're here to stay and we should be planning our
needs flexibly well into the next century, not unlike our efforts at master plans for water, sewer, storm
drains, roads and parks.
When the City Council Finance Committee suggested a long range comprehensive plan the City staff
contacted two architectural firms which undertake these types of studies to seek their methodology
and gauge their cost. Since the City Council meeting on March zjd City staff has received an expression
of interest from eight firms to undertake this work for the City.lf the City Council proceeds on this work
program staff suggests that we develop an RFP and solicit competitive proposals.
One of the eight submittals was from a Newport Beach firm nearby City Hall, Newport Resource
Management, Inc. It's Chairman is Rush Hill II, and he has offered at no cost to brief the City Council at
our study session on how these studies are undertaken, why, and what results we can expect. I've
asked Mr. Hill to make a presentation and keep it to no more than 20-30 minutes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council receive the presentation by City staff and Newport Resource Management and give
appropriate direction to City staff on the next steps in the comprehensive review of the City Hall
complex.
Yes on Measure B
City Hall in the Park
if Protect n
9 our
Tax Dollars
It ..
� L
r �
y /
� t
t
In the 19405, the City of Newport Beach had r
a year-around population of 11,000 residents. #
_ During this time, they also celebrated the grand 1
-Y�
opening of a new City Hall on the corner of
Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
Over the years, as development moved
southeast and inland away from the coast, the
4 population grew more than eightfold. The City Hall that was built in the 1940s
became inadequate to serve the needs of Newport Beach's 84,000 residents. tr
While the City spent over $1 million dollars on plan
ning and design of a new city hall, some quick fixes i
were applied: minor remodeling and putting office I !�
trailers on City Hall's front lawn. Meanwhile, land tc
costs sky ro ted and available land diminished. Q� �
If Af
rim
0000� IL
A Better Way
j
Noted local architect Bill Ficker brought for- --
I.;;jrd a plan to put aside 3 acres of vacant land
it, Newwort Center already awned by the City. This
would save millions of dollars in land acquisition -
costs and centrally locate the City Hall next to the
main library and near the Newport Beach Police
i Department Headquarters'.
On June 14th, former State Senator Marian Bergeson, Businessman
Jack Croul, retired planning executive Ron Hendrickson, and hundreds
J of volunteers began collecting signatures to put "The Ficker Plan" on
�r the ballot.
r
Seventy-one days later, they turned in more then 15,000 signatures,
1 the most in history for a local ballot measure, to put the Ficker Plan
on the ballot.
Now, on February 5th, the voters—and not the
politicians—will have the final say on the cost and
location of your next City Hall. �.�.
ylr
1
Vote Yes on Measure B
- Saves the City more than $10 million.
e - The Site is owned by the City.
# • $27 million in development fees available for building City Hall.
• Central location, adjacent to Library, with synergism.
- More than 15,000 voters signed petitions to vote on the issue.
- Neighbors' and public views protected.
} - City will retain its independence and identity.
Exhibit B (Continued)
in the People iii
laiiii-V _ Larry Sanas
Lon Alen Riiniggky Craw Barry L Hinton Barbara Meserve Did Stevens
RLmd Aft Peggy Cr l Bob HaBmm Steve Maim loan Steven;
Miami AIM Jr. Timm Crull Ilene HoHmen Lonnie Nadal John State
Chalom Alison John Cure Card Hudson Alexandra Nichols Byron rarnrur
Gerald Atson Samud Davidson Dwight Hudson Dick Nichols Shannon Tantrism
Judah AAshuler Kirk Damon Bob Huntsberger Sandy Nichols Wanda Taylor
1.Fele Arrcl s Peter Destages Penny Humsberger Audrey Nye James Thomason
V4m Anderson Suta ne Deshorgm Franco Hylton Wall"Ohm Linda Thump"
Douglas Ayres Crate Deubdh Delores Johnson Alan Obeson Caeka Tobin
Pam Bauch Roger DeYourR Jr. Karen Johnson Lasix ONeil Tom Tobin
Ion Barky Tan Doan Mike C.Johnson Eugene ORmhe Ralph Tanlnsm
Josephine C.Baldenn Dorothy Dom Todd Johnson Marilyn O'Rourke Jim Tracy
Barbara Barnard Heidi Dan George Imes Dolores Oiling Judy Tracy
Steve Barnard Larry Own H.Call Jones rorty,Ottng Bu¢Tolman
Barton Beek Richard Dorsey Nancy Janes Basil Pate Irene Tepmm
Linda BM Anted"Dassen Sharon Jorgensen Eva Parsons Tom Tupman
Came Doessen Bk Keay JoAnne POJa Clarence Turner
Marcia Dorsey Gay Wassel Kelly Robert Primmer lames Tumor
Tin Don Teri Kennady, Rally Pulaski Chador Vandenor
Susan Dow Dolores Keenan Qua RaBeffi Jo Vaidervst
l
George Dralm Gene KermanTan Raflew Gene Verge
Phyl Drayon lames Kerrigan I"Ray John Vow
Pete Duca Trios"an Wallue Ray Bid veil
SwanDuhy Parrkm KingsleyMagsley Don Regan rgie von idKleirJoyre Dunigan D&M Klages Caird Remark] Williamvon KlenSnid
Calhy Dunlap H Taylor Knight Terry Reinhold John U"lane;DunUp Ken Knight Ross Ribaudo PODY Vlam
Sam Dunlap Paula Knight Lida Facility Barbara Wallace
Dennis Durgan Don Kraee Mel Riehley,k. David Wallace
lase Fagan 111 John Krux Paul Richy Linda Webb
Lame Easton Pada Kruse Buy a Riley KernWeederGal-[deibug Lucille Kuehn WilliamRing Chin Vieish
Drax Units Cate Layman Jim Robertson Sally Wets,
Pat Beek 1,na Elivus Wil Layman Slepharie Robensm Terry Welsh
Seymour Beek Kirk 5.Dliod Jana K.Lenart Transact Robinson Bill Wenke
Lyn Bdasco Pat as Judy Leeper AAdry Rosve lean Wemke
Wendy Bel Mary Anne End Ann Lehner Robert Rosenast Linda west
Bers Benjamm Robert Emelt John Lehman I.Edgar Ruder Denni;F kkhelan
limaabk Marian Bergew land Eveasmeyer Richard Levis Ned Roller Bill wilinvan
Trkona Bergin Akan Farbarg Jerry Lumen Susan Ihubasan Bob Williamson
Debi Bibb Barbara Filer Judah Leaama GregoryV Ruoda Julie LVRson
Helga Birmingham BB FKke Karen Linden Paul Salam Justin V&on
Jama&mingM1am lean Heathen Thanas linden Mrs WD.$chock Nomh Wel
Barbara Bruer Dot Fletcher John Upyanik Omnis kholz Mary WoM
Susan K.Bise Sally Fleisher Mary Lippno, Bob 9nellon Tom W AIR
George Bissell Russ rioter Kent Laas Nancy Skinner Douglas M Wood
Dr.Melinda Bladanan Herbed Fou Richard Luehs Lem Siad George Woodard
Many Blake Odene rocs Susan Luehim Writa n Slaughter Ben Wright
John Clark Booth Eve Fsuuard Gil Lukusky Gared Sarah Sandy Wright
Deane Bodorf David Fuser BIT Wil Larry Smith Bonnie ydgm
Dm Boxers Barbara Rermxn Val Lim Natalie Smith Preston Lligir
Joe Bra ford Ray Freeman Surat Mad land Wakes Smith Jr
Judy Bradord Lam Frost He vy Madel lm Somers Pari
Steve Wahl Joe GarraM Edith Wncx
WeIdY Brooks Jahn Garrisorh Richard Morowitz
Ruth Budom Jail Cmft Verna hladoa
Joyce Can Nancy Geerkngs Bob McCaffrey
Christmas Cal i Dermis Gi%doe Laura MCCwt
We Calder Rea Goldberg Martha MaClarty,
Salt Calder RJ Greewood Rollo HkUellan,It
Nancy Caldwell Sheryl Griffith Dorothy AlcDonnld
Diane Goran Darod M Guggenheim lames M.Mdadden +
Richard Cams Sue Guggenheim Dan Mcflone
Thomas C.Casey It GtmningiAyalt Stuart McKenzie
Pal Christ true Hannglon Carol McKibbin
Ped Chuan hanker Hantlmg lad McManus
Tm Collier urn Hetleman Shirley hlCMlannrs
Lady Calver Novell Hendridwn Lorisa kLCNeA
JuliS Cook Ron Hcndridsor J.mie;Mean Measure B Moligirr r kCroul
Saaat r Abrriaa R.YBP.sar and Ran RelmiEkaar.
Exhibit C: Design Paramaters
City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition
General Design Parameters
(adopted by the City Council on April 22,2008, posted April 24, 2008
and amended on May 13, 2008)
The following General Design Parameters are for the firms/teams selected to participate in the Newport Beach
City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition.
a.Access to Site and Circulation—Vehicular access to the City Hall and Park site shall be off of Avocado Avenue.
Farrallon shall not be extended through to MacArthur from its current eastern terminus at Avocado.
Farrallon may be considered as an entrance point to the City Hall and Park provided that no direct
connection to MacArthur Boulevard exists from Farrallon. There shall be no "right-turn in" vehicular
entrance to the City Hall and Park site from MacArthur within the Central Parcel. Exhibit A shows
surrounding streets, today's access points to the Library, and identifies the three key parcels (North Parcel,
Central Parcel, Library Parcel) subject to the master plan.
b. City Hall location on the site —The City Hall and its parking shall generally be located in the Central Parcel
south of the projection of Farrallon Drive, as shown on Exhibit B.
c. Building Height—The height of the City Hall building (and parking facility) shall be no higher than the height
limits imposed by the Newport Village PC Text View Plane limitation as depicted on Exhibit C except that
architectural design features, appropriate to the scale of the primary structure, may penetrate the view
plane created by the aforementioned height limits. Height limits in the Newport Village PC Text are generally
45 feet above grade OR the View Plane limitation (expressed in feet above mean sea level), whichever is
lower. All landscaping and park improvements,at maturity, shall be lower than the View Plane limitation.
d. Geotechnical Considerations—Geotechnical considerations will be set forth in a soils investigation performed
by Leighton Associates in April 2008 which is to be attached as Exhibit D when completed. The current
expected date for the final report is the end of April. Preliminary results show no unique soils or water table
issues.
e. Library Access and Orientation to City Hall —The Newport Beach Central Library currently faces away from
the Central Parcel and the site of City Hall, towards the ocean. The Design should, to the greatest extent
practicable, maximize the Library's relationship to the City Hall structure through consideration of a second
entry, plaza, shared parking, landscaping or any other appropriate means within the context of the proposed
design.
f. Natural Park Considerations —The northerly 5-6 acre portion of the Central Parcel ("Newport Center Park")
has been proposed as a natural park (i.e. one that is reflective of the region's natural habitats and not overly
manicured nor oriented towards turfgrass). Of particular importance is preserving the view from the
southernmost meadow area and creating a landscaped border around the natural park area as a transition
from the more manicured streetscape to the natural park.
g. Other Park Requirements—The southernmost meadow area of the Central Parcel and the 3- acre North
Parcel shall have park amenities such as restrooms,a tot lot, picnic and
seating areas (including a softscape ampitheater, if appropriate), drinking fountains, and an ADA-accessible
path (the latter being around all or part of the 20-acre master plan area). Both parcels shall be integrated as
portions of the same Newport Center Park.They shall have activity-oriented facilities but not any organized
sports fields.
h. Lighting– Exterior lighting throughout the Project (City Hall, Parking, and Park) should be designed in such a
fashion as to be the minimal intensity necessary to meet safety needs.
i. Landscaping Considerations –The landscaping of the Park and City Hall area shall use water conserving plant
material to the greatest extent possible. The intent is to not create a desert or dry landscape palette but a
palette that is "California-friendly" and blends into the landscape palette of Newport Center and Newport
Beach. Best Management Practices in water conservation, irrigation and drainage shall be employed in the
design.
j. Parking– 350 spaces shall be provided for City Hall with an additional 100 spaces for the Central Library (the
Library has a shortage of spaces currently). Parking for the general public should be convenient to the City
Hall and Library buildings. The parking structure should be a separate structure from the City Hall building.
The additional 100 library spaces need not be in the City Hall parking structure.
k.Space Allocation and Needs Assessment Criteria–The 2002 Needs Assessment prepared by LPA(a link to this
document, and any updates to the document, on the City's website is Exhibit F) will be the basis for the
primary program requirements for the City Hall Structure with the following adjustments:
OMThe City desires an open floor plan concept with maximum flexibility for future needs;
OMThe building shall be designed for 270 full time employees at 200-250 square feet per employee, not
including public areas; and
OMThe building's overall size shall be approximately 72-79,000 total square feet including public areas.
Please note that the 2002 Needs Assessment includes these two program requirements, both of which
remain desirable:
ODA "one-stop shop' permit counter (for permits relating to Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire
Prevention along with a cashier); and
OMA 150-seat Council Chambers.
I. LEED Criteria -The City Hall Structure(s) shall be designed to at least a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design("LEED")standard of silver,with a goal to go higher, if feasible within budgetary limitations.
m. Corona del Mar Plaza Considerations – The City will develop a direct entrance to the Central Library's
existing parking lot, as shown (generally) in Exhibit E.This entrance may or may not be signalized. No further
improvements to CdM Plaza's access are envisioned at this time.
n. View Considerations–Views are a sensitive issue in Newport Beach. In addition to the criteria in "c" above,
the design should protect the public views westward over the property from MacArthur Boulevard. The
design should also be sensitive to the westward views from homes east of MacArthur Boulevard over the
property. Any penetrations above the view plane as permitted in "c" above should only serve to enhance
the architectural appearance of the City Hall structure or frame or enhance the private or public views
across the property. Usable landscaped roof treatments or roof terraces are acceptable — these are neither
encouraged nor discouraged. Also, the building and parking facility's lighting design shall take into
consideration nighttime views from the residences east of MacArthur Boulevard. All landscaping and park
improvements, at maturity, shall be within the view plane on Exhibit C.
o. Building Design — The city is not setting any design theme for the City Hall building other than seeking a
timeless design that will wear well over the years and not be dated in a few years. The design should reflect
the character of Newport Beach. It should be harmonious with the adjacent Library and the eclectic
architectural styles of Newport Center.The building should be recognized as a significant public building.
p. Budgetary Constraints—The budgetary goal of the Project is as follows:
• Approximately$400-450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF&E);
• Approximately$20-25,000 per space for the parking structure; and
• Approximately $15-20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and
drainage) and site improvements.
The above amounts are exclusive of soft costs. The City Hall is not at this time planned to be an "essential
services building." The budget parameters expressed here are not absolute amounts but are intended to
indicate the price range the City expects the project to cost. Designers should use these numbers as a guide
in preparing their submittals. Design economy will be an important consideration.
Exhibit D: The Civic Center Rabbits I`-
The 16 rabbit sculptures in the Civic Center Park are
nearing their 2-year birthdays and we still get a lot
of questions about them. The most frequently
asked questions include:
• Why are they there?
• Why rabbits?
• What did they cost?
• Are they art? r_• ' '�
The Civic Center Rabbit Story is this. They are not
intended to be art. They are a feature for kids. The -
landscape architect for the Civic Center Park, Peter
Walker Partners (PWP - the same firm doing the
9/11 Memorial Park in Lower Manhattan) wanted to
place unique children's elements in the park.
To PWP, a traditional tot lot with manufactured play equipment just wasn't the right fit for this site.
There's room to roam here and the landscape architects didn't see a need for a specific play area. They
wanted visitors of all ages to explore the different features throughout the park's approximately 14
acres.
The project budget included $225,000 for adding fun, play elements that would appeal to children. (A
standard tot lot costs about $250,000 and up.) PWP looked at various climb-able sculpture concepts
based on wildlife (giant sea turtles, spider webs and more) and even one of Patrick Dougherty's willow
sculptures (his sculptures are alive after planting and stay alive for some time). The costs ran too high
for some of these ideas, while durability and lifespan were in question for others.
So how did we end up with rabbits? As the project team considered the wildlife sculptures, all agreed
that the design should be based on something actually found in Newport Beach (unlike giant sea
turtles). Desert Cotton Tails are the real, live bunnies that are native to this area and a number of them
consider the park site home. So, rabbits became a sculpture option. About that same time, PWP held
an office reception and someone brought in real rabbits to help entertain the young children. As Peter
Walker tells the story, the bunnies were a hit not just with the young kids, but with the older kids
and the adults all evening. People were just drawn to them. Soon after, PWP decided rabbit sculptures
could be the right fit for the Civic Center Park.
So why are they gigantic? While the rabbits have an
.-j element of reality (going back to the idea that Desert
Cotton Tails are native to this area), PWP also wanted
r
f them to be whimsical and to have an element of surprise
and encourage imagination.
They wanted something that would draw kids and
n. .
�P ? grownups into the park and then from one area of the park
r ' to another. They even thought — and it's turned out to be
true — that drivers might pull off of MacArthur or Avocado
to see what those gigantic rabbits are all about.
' The rabbits do command attention and their large size also
r. makes them fun for kids. They are practically indestructible
(the rabbits) and it seems that children can't help but climb
on them and they often pose with them for pictures (we've
r noticed quite a few adults having their pictures taken with
the rabbits too).
JO So what did the rabbits cost? The final price for grading,
placement, manufacturing, design, painting, and graffiti-protection was just over $221,000, or about
$13,800 per rabbit. After watching a steady stream of kids (and parents) interact with the rabbits over
the last six months, we know PWP's thinking was probably correct. The quirky, huge bunnies have
drawn more people to the park and been at the center of more fun and imagination than a solitary tot
lot ever could.
Another question we were recently asked, "Can someone buy one for their own yard?" And we're not
sure about this one.
Exhibit E: More About Furnishings
"Columns about lower back work comp claims avoided,flimsy chairs not purchased then repurchased, or tables
that didn't wobble and break are notoriously boring."
— Frustrated city managers everywhere
Civic Center Furniture Facts
The new Civic Center City Hall and Library Expansion are designed to last for the next 100 years. So what about
the furniture? Unfortunately, not many furniture companies make furniture to last 100 years, but it's amazing
how long well-made pieces do last. Many folks own furniture that has been passed down through several
generations.
The City has a history of making smart purchases in the furniture department. Just two short years ago, anyone
visiting the old City Hall would have stumbled upon many desks, chairs,filing cabinets, and bookcases that have
been in use for decades. Our City Manager, Dave Kiff, used the same desk that was used by Bob Wynn, City
Manager from 1971 to 1991.That desk was over 40 years old, his chair was over 17 years old. The Public Works
Director's desk was also over 40 years old. There were filing cabinets that were older than those desks. Much
of the furniture was made by Steelcase and Kimball,two well known makers of quality office furniture at that
time.
So fast forward to today.The City recently purchased new furniture for the new Civic Center. In planning for that
event,the City held back any new furniture purchases (and many facility repairs)for several years. You may
remember that discussions to replace City Hall started in 2002,so we limped along without investing in new
furniture or capital repairs to the old City Hall buildings for about 10 years. That action allowed the City to bank
repair and replacement funds—into the hundreds of thousands of dollars-to be used in the new Civic center.
The Civic Center design team reviewed several manufacturers and lines of furniture and established
specifications based upon a balance of cost and quality. Cost and quality vary greatly in today's market from the
mass produced,overseas-made furniture that is available at the big box stores to fine furniture that is made of
exotic woods and premium fabrics.
Furniture in the public areas of the city hall and library needs to be durable and have some modest level of
aesthetics. Furniture in public areas tends to be treated similar to the way folks treat rental cars, "Don't worry
about that spill, it's a rental". It was into these public areas—public meeting rooms and waiting areas as well as
the new children's room and study areas at the Central Library—that the most expensive furniture went.
Furniture in the employee areas needs to last long and be functional. Additionally, furniture in work areas need
to be ergonomically correct to prevent workplace injuries and associated costs under workers compensation and
loss of productivity. A cheap "Under$100" desk chair can quickly become very expensive due to workplace
medical claims, time off, and a loss of productivity.
Systems Furniture (cabinets,files, desks,study carrels)
With the open floor plan design of the City Hall office building, our first thought was to explore the various
versions of pre-manufactured partitions.These partitions are designed to have furniture attached to them and
have built in electrical and data. Many businesses use partition systems as they are portable when a business
moves and easily reconfigured for changing needs. However,these partition systems are very expensive. In our
situation, it's unlikely that we'd be moving City Hall, but we do need flexibility to meet the changing community
services and needs.
Our design team came up with an inexpensive but effective solution. In place of expensive manufactured
partitions,they designed a simple partition made of"Apple Ply", multilayered plywood (yes, plywood)with
veneer surfaces.The City's partition system is designed to accept various components of standard system
furniture (cabinet,file, desk, and credenza units). The design is easily reconfigured and costs much less than
manufactured partition systems.
The purchasing process for the standard systems furniture was by competitive bid. Furniture lines from
Haworth,Teknion, Herman Miller,Steelcase, and Allsteel were considered. Furniture distributors representing
the various product lines submitted competitive bids to the City. IOS, representing the Haworth product line
was selected as the lowest responsible bid for the systems furniture.
Another innovation at the Civic Center is the unique study carrels at the Central Library's expansion. These
individual study stations provide privacy, electricity, and comfort in addition to good aesthetics. These durable
carrels are among the most well-used and popular aspects of the Civic Center project,which added additional
study room and a new children's room to the already widely-popular Newport Beach Public Library.
Chairs&Tables
The criteria for the selection of chairs and tables were based upon the various uses. Chairs and tables in the
public areas needed to be durable and of quality construction. The waiting areas have commercial grade seating
with strong metal frames and stain-resistant surfaces. The new furniture in the kids' room at the Central Library
needed to be miniaturized but still durable, fun, and comfortable. All of the pieces are designed to last a long
time and maintain appearance through thousands of users. Many of the furniture pieces purchased have a 10-
to 12-year full warranty. They are also renewable in that they can be reupholstered.
The Library recently reupholstered several chairs in the Central Library that were over 13 years old. This action
potentially doubles the service life of our furniture at a lower cost than replacing the furniture.
The cost of the chairs and tables ranged from $180 for guest chairs in offices to$4,000 for the larger commercial
couches in the public waiting areas, like the permit counter. When spread over the life of the chair or table,the
cost of the selected furniture is very competitive with alternative products that do not have longevity, quality, or
warrantees built into them. Similar to the system furniture purchase,furniture distributors representing the
various product lines submitted competitive bids to the City. Pivot Interiors representing Herman Miller and
other furniture lines was selected as the lowest responsible bid for the chairs and tables.
Critics of these purchases point out that the City could have bought cheap desk chairs for under$100. That's
completely true. But cheap isn't always economical. Checking the Office Max website,you can buy desk chairs
for under$100 up to premium chairs at$850. However, the cheap chairs usually have a use recommendation
listed for casual use, "0 to 3 hours per day."
Additionally,those chairs only carry no warranty or a short three year limited warranty(limited usually means
foam and upholstery for one year, metal parts for three). The employee desk chairs that were purchased for the
Civic Center are Herman Miller Aeron chairs for about$560 each (retail $680). They come with a 12-year full
warranty that covers everything.They are ergonomically superior to the cheaper chairs. This is especially
important when you have employees working in these chairs for 8 or more hours each day to prevent expensive
medical claims,workers compensation, and loss of production issues.
In theory,you could buy four cheap chairs that would last as long as one of our current desk chairs with a
savings of$160 (if you can believe the warranties,4@ Syr vs. 1 @ 12yr). If you factor in the overhead cost for
city staff to purchase and re-purchase this chair four times along with the potential medical claims and loss of
production from a chair that is only recommended for use between 0 and 3 hours per day,the $160 savings
likely evaporates (and more).
We think we've made some very smart purchases for furniture and equipment, as the furniture purchased for
our new Civic Center will service us for many years to come. Our history of balancing cost and quality has served
us well.
Exhibit F: Civic Center Expenditure Details
IVICC'E NTE R&PARK 01-Aug-14
Enpenditure Breakdourn
Des,n ption Amount
OFT cOSTs
A RCH ITECTURA L DESIGN
Concept Design Refine me m M7,675
Schematic Design&Design Oevelopment,5o&00 4,998,677
Construction Doc ume ruts{CD) 5,588,154
Construction Support(CS) 4,514,782
Total Design= 15,749,288
ENVIRONME WAL DOCUMENTATIO N&MONITORING
Environmental Impact Report 6118)]48
Geotec hn is I 25 3,421
Environmental MR gat ion Mo nito nB 68,186
Total E m1 m nme ma l= as6,235
TOTAL DESIGN 16,435,523
PROJECT MA NAG EMENTICUNSTRUCTO N SUPPOU
P mpct me nage me re:SD& DD M7,018
Pmject Manage me m:CD&CS 2,305jq 33
Leadership in Ene gy and E m iron mental Design(LEE D) 170,250
TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3,243)395
SCE-SAVINGS BVDESIGN -261,150
TOTAL SO Fr COSTS 19,41868
HARD CONSTR LCTIO N COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
Basi Se n•ies IG a re rel mrd icons 7,169,255
• GMP Phase 1-Mass Exc avat i]n&S ho ring wa 11 7,336,439
• GMP Phase 2.Desgn Assbt/sulld Parking Structure 7,426JS53
• GMP Phase 3-City 1611,Library&Park 82,374,384
• GMP Phase 4-San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge 1,000)]00
• GMP Phase 5-Signage&deferred Ekc triter LR it it es 476,281
• GMP Phase 6-Li bra ry Cie re nto ry W ind OW Re place me nt 720,913
106,501,125
CO NSTR UCTIO N CHA NG E O R DE RS
CCA 41-A nA Ramp Mod ifi ations 22,2M
COO 42-Revised DG surface for Dog Park 10,9m
Coo 43-Av Modifications&shelving 35)]06
COO 44-Window Shade and Lighting w ittrols 134,618
CM 45-Sto nn Damage,(Reimbursed by FEMA,SES J]C5) 0
CC046.Structural elemInts,a lectrkal&Lightirg 25OA93
COO 47-landscaping and Site mod giatioa 271,666
Coo M-Architectural and Structural revisiDrs 611,842
CCD 43 -Varum 561,912
COO 410-Various 367,8 35
CCD 411-Nanous 215,376
CCO 412-verlous 324,627
CCA M3 Va nous 475,665
COO 414-Va nous 586,085
COO 415-Va nous 348$M
COO W1-Va nous 1,412,717
COO 417-Nanous 808,014
5,497 fi 22
E%TENDED G ENERAL CONDITIONS(Jan-May) 1,400,000
TOTAL HA R D CO NSTRUCNO N= 114,401,747
Exhibit F (Continued)
NCILIARV COSTS
CONTRACTS U I LD ING OFFICIAL- PIAN CHECK&INSPECTION 1,426,285
MATERIAL TESTING&SPECIAL INSPECTION 1,309j608
FIXTURES.FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT
CiryHall FF&E 2,755,000
Library FFE 525$M
TOTA L FF&E= 3,280$21
OC I P INSURANCE 1,882,9 22
IOTA LA NCILIARw COST= 7,899 N=36
PROI ECT COSTS SU BTOf AL 141,719551
LIBRA RV REPAIR COSTS
ClerestoryWindow Repair 720,913
Floor leveling 50,514
Additional Carpeting due to floor leveling 13,773
Existing Library Foundation Waterproofing 47,799
Refurbishment of existing rollers hades 5,000
Additional power and data at self dleckout 7,499
U pgrade existing Electrical 22,983
Remove and replace 48 diseased Olive Trees 52500
U pgrade Library book Security System to RFID 33,6m
Existing Stairway rebuild due to alignment problem aooco
TOTAL LIBRARY REPAIR 1,204,602
S ham of Soft costs 204,466
S ha re of i ns ura rice 19,326
Shale of G e ne ra I mrd itions 7s 489
TOTAL LIBRARY REPAIR 1,5u ,365
PROI BCT COSTS TOTAL(Lem Dedicated Li bra ry reps i r msts)= 140.:-14.%?